| More Virtual Promote ... Search Engine Forums · Webmasters Toolkit · Free Website Templates · Scumware.com |
 |
| . | ||||
| Virtual Promote Gazette | Home | Subscribe/Unsubscribe | Archives | |
| . | ||||
gazette
Issue # 208 (12-22-2003)
Merry ChristmasHave a safe and happy holiday season .... from everyone here at JimWorld.com! |
| In the Crosshairs |
|
Since this past spring, one question has been the minds of SEO forum members across the Internet...Just what the hell is going on in Mountain View?? Webmasters and professional SEOs have gotten used to watching and noting changes to the Google algorithm over the past several years. After all, this is how search engines like Google improve themselves. "Florida," the most recent Google update, has trumped all previous updates and has caused the industry to go haywire. Conjecture, accusations and theories are flying around message boards and discussion lists around the Web. People have posted everything from "Google's forcing potential advertisers lower in the results to force them into Adwords" to "They're targeting specific industries to more prominently display their big advertisers". There's nothing more damaging to a company (or an industry ... or even a sitting president) than a baseless accusation that's not backed up by any sense of fact, reason or logic. I spoke directly with Google about these allegations and they stated unequivocally that there is "Absolutely nothing commercial affects the ordering or display of search results. Period. The only crossover between the 'organic' results and the adwords results is that adwords knows what you searched on. Beyond that, the two are completely separate entities. Any manipulation of the core search results other than algorithmic relevance, which is completely computer driven would go against the very fiber of what Google is and stands for as a company."
While many valid, and possibly accurate theories have been presented, (notably, Chris Ridings "Stemming" Theory: http://www.searchguild.com/tpage4713-0.html) we at JimWorld have continued to speculate about other possible causes. When one of our forum members posted regarding possible internal struggles within Google related to technology patents, we wondered if we hadn't stumbled upon something big and moved to put together this article. Though I do not agree with many of the theories of the poster, the thread by "rossendryv" is located here: http://www.jimworld.com/apps/webmaster.forums/action::thread/thread::1071160110/forum::google/. As I looked further into the facts, and did a bit of deductive reasoning, things started making more sense, and this "theory" began to look more and more logical. I approached Google for comment as well as some patent attorneys that I'm close with in an attempt to get more information. As this was (albeit for a short time) publicly discussed here, I alerted Google to the fact that we were going to formally address it. Rather than encourage more innuendo, I wanted to base an "official announcement" on something more solid than an "I think...." diatribe. What you're about to read is the result of our research, phone calls, and other consultations, and while is based in fact, still represents our interpretations of those facts. Lets briefly address the current state of affairs at Google, both from a logical and factual basis.
Google may have put themselves in a position where they must reinvent the wheel (or at least the part of the wheel that's owned by Stanford) before they can move forward. Logical analysis of the information above makes us wonder if there isn't a very simple conclusion to this puzzle. The organic results at google.com are not changing as the result of a conspiracy to increase adwords revenues, nor is Google showing favoritism to their advertisers. Similarly, they're not "monkeying" with the results to try and screw specific people or specific industries. There's nothing sinister going on. The simple fact is that Google might just need to make lightning strike twice. If that's the case, you can bet your hindquarters that they're investing countless dollars and man-hours on it, as there are countless dollars at stake when this all comes to it's final conclusion. With things of such magnitude as the worlds largest search engine preparing for the worlds largest and most eagerly awaited IPO, there's probably hundreds of other things going on that are impacting Google's decisions to change the algorithms, to deflect discussion away from organic search, and to go live with what appears to be untested algorithmic changes. Google says, quite emphatically, that they "Test, test, and test again before sending updates live. We certainly can't divulge the process, of course, but each update is run through the many stages of both internal and external testing". That said, it's my belief that the algorithm changes we're seeing are being done for reasons both altruistic as well as financial. I believe that Google strives to provide the most relevant results possible. It's in their best interest from a viability standpoint to continue to do that, obviously. From a financial standpoint, it's my opinion that part of the impetus to change things so drastically is driven in some ways by the Patent/IPO bugaboo. We may be looking at a double edged sword here. The existing patent may be a small hiccup on the way to the big IPO: just a little financial obligation. It may also be something more of a concern either from a technology or financial standpoint that is forcing Google to make some tough decisions. Regardless of the real reason, we have some decisions to make both as searchers and as optimizers. Rather than invoke theories of conspiracy and cry foul every time your site (or a client site) drops for no explicable reason in Google results, let's do more to work with Google on improving things. As stated earlier, the success of their organic search is directly tied to it's relevance to the searcher and it's reliability for the SEO. Let's see what we can do within JimWorld to communicate to Google, in a constructive way, what we're seeing, what we expect to see, and offer some real world suggestions, input and grass roots know-how. If Google wants to continue testing algorithm tweaks in a real-life beta test, let's test with them, and see if as a group we can help them shape Google for the future. |
Read the In the Crosshairs section from the Last Issue or in the Following Issue
JimWorld Member comments and feedback ...
Posted On: 12/22/2003 02:23
Posted By: Bry
Posted By: Bry
My goodness, it's so clear now. This was an excellent article. Thanks for the new insight.
Posted On: 12/22/2003 02:10
Posted By: Ches
Posted By: Ches
Excellent posting. Must have taken quite some time to assemble all that information together.
What you seem to be saying is that Google are now trying to take the world by storm again with a new algo. One that they will not have to share ownership with anybody.
What you seem to be saying is that Google are now trying to take the world by storm again with a new algo. One that they will not have to share ownership with anybody.
Posted On: 12/22/2003 03:13
Posted By: davaddavad
Posted By: davaddavad
Thanks for collecting all that info I had some of that already but that fills in a few more spaces. ;)
Posted On: 12/22/2003 03:46
Posted By: jcokos
Posted By: jcokos
Ches,
Thats my personal guess, yes.
Not sure if their contract (assuming that they have one) with Stanford is not one that's "fair" or "financially suitable" enough for Google to consider keeping the original algo, or if they just want a clean break.
They wouldn't give me a definitive comment one way or the other, for obvious reasons.
I'm not even 100% sure that this is what's really happening. Just seems like all of the pieces fit though, don't they ?
Thats my personal guess, yes.
Not sure if their contract (assuming that they have one) with Stanford is not one that's "fair" or "financially suitable" enough for Google to consider keeping the original algo, or if they just want a clean break.
They wouldn't give me a definitive comment one way or the other, for obvious reasons.
I'm not even 100% sure that this is what's really happening. Just seems like all of the pieces fit though, don't they ?
Posted On: 12/22/2003 03:11
Posted By: Everyman
Posted By: Everyman
I don't buy the theory that Google is hamstrung by the PageRank patent. PageRank has not been working well since last April. For months Google has been in an excellent position to phase out all mention of PageRank if they so desire, as by now it plays only a very obscure role, by design or more likely by happenstance, in their overall ranking or lack of ranking.
There are many ways to calculate link popularity without interfering with the PageRank patent. Other search engines use link popularity to some extent, and there's never been any question of their right to do so with their own algorithms. Moreover, PageRank was a drain on CPU resources. It scales well only because it is precomputed, but that precomputation was getting very expensive. I don't think Google even likes PageRank all that much these days.
Google could have stopped hyping PageRank from the first moment that they thought of an IPO. They haven't changed their official [url=http://www.google.com/technology/]explanation[/url] of PageRank in years. They could have deleted the toolbar indicator many months ago, and come up with some other excuse for "phoning home." PageRank needs Google more than Google needs PageRank, and I cannot believe that Stanford is in any sort of legal position that would cause Google to freak out with strange algorithms they way they have since April, and particularly since the Florida update.
I can well believe that Google needs to grab a convenient excuse to explain the recent upheavals. And I can believe that the Stanford Trustees' ownership of the patent is very convenient. But I just cannot believe that there is any substance to the argument.
We don't need to help Google weather the criticism they've recently been experiencing. You've got it backwards. Rather, Google needs to tell us what the hell is going on. I don't care if Google is a private corporation, or if they will soon be a public one, or if they're all Martians over there in Mountain View, who have their own laws and hate all Earthlings. Google is earth's most vital and important information resource, and as world citizens we have a right to know what's happening, and what to expect in the near future.
This Patent Theory is too little, too late, too convenient, and too unbelievable.
Posted On: 12/22/2003 03:18
Posted By: tonys
Posted By: tonys
I seem to align with Everyman. However let's assume the patent theory relating to Stanford U is a factor. If that is a motivating factor of G recreating an entirely different algo to avoid compenstion to SU, I would consider that to be an unethical incentive. The core algo development was significant to the success of G. The funding of that core development came from others but the G brothers realize the financial windfall. What kinda of crap is that??? If the G intent is to avoid sharing the fruits of the endeavor, I believe that would be considered unthetical, selfishly motivated and certainally not consistent with a company with credibility and honesty.
Posted On: 12/22/2003 03:48
Posted By: Bry
Posted By: Bry
Everyman, are you one of those people who says that 2+2 does not equal 4 despite the facts presented to him? Jcokos' article is based on facts, while your opinion seems to be a pretty baseless opinion that's driven by emotion instead of fact. Sorry.
If you are a Google insider or an engineer that specializes in search algo's then please let us know so we can see which facts you are drawing your conclusions from. Thanks.
If you are a Google insider or an engineer that specializes in search algo's then please let us know so we can see which facts you are drawing your conclusions from. Thanks.
Posted On: 12/22/2003 03:22
Posted By: Bry
Posted By: Bry
Remember, in the words of Sherlock Holmes, "It is a capital mistake to theorize in advance of the facts."
Posted On: 12/22/2003 03:38
Posted By: jcokos
Posted By: jcokos
This theory, remember, is just theory, not confirmed by google as "the real reason".
My statement that we help google is altruistic. If the results suck as bad as we can all prove that they do, one way to get them better is to perhaps document things that we can (ie: searching for xyz should produce links abc ... etc) and then getting quality suggestions/proof over to google.
I don't think that 50 threads on a forum that reiterate the obvious (my site dropped ... results aren't relevant) serve any purpose other than to get a "feel good" about bitching in public. It would be better to take some time, fomulate some quality ideas/proof, as Chris Ridings did, and get Google's attention with some constructive feedback. They are the type of company that listens and responds.
As to PageRank. April is when they supposedly abandonded it, and that pretty well corresponds to when all the griping about relevance started, doesn't it ? The pieces to this puzzle most certainly fit.
My statement that we help google is altruistic. If the results suck as bad as we can all prove that they do, one way to get them better is to perhaps document things that we can (ie: searching for xyz should produce links abc ... etc) and then getting quality suggestions/proof over to google.
I don't think that 50 threads on a forum that reiterate the obvious (my site dropped ... results aren't relevant) serve any purpose other than to get a "feel good" about bitching in public. It would be better to take some time, fomulate some quality ideas/proof, as Chris Ridings did, and get Google's attention with some constructive feedback. They are the type of company that listens and responds.
As to PageRank. April is when they supposedly abandonded it, and that pretty well corresponds to when all the griping about relevance started, doesn't it ? The pieces to this puzzle most certainly fit.
Posted On: 12/22/2003 04:23
Posted By: unreviewed
Posted By: unreviewed
I don't agree with Everyman, but I sure do like his post. ;)
I happen to know just how much John has been in touch personally with G about this. Not to mention taking the time and trouble to have patent attorneys take a hard look at the patents with the view of the article.
Definitely some smoke here, and there must be some reason for the crappy results and the constant 60+ day update.
I happen to know just how much John has been in touch personally with G about this. Not to mention taking the time and trouble to have patent attorneys take a hard look at the patents with the view of the article.
Definitely some smoke here, and there must be some reason for the crappy results and the constant 60+ day update.
Posted On: 12/22/2003 04:41
Posted By: jcokos
Posted By: jcokos
This by no means, I'm sure, is the [b]only thing[/b] that's going on over at G.
It may have been the impetus that started a whole slew of changes over there, or it may just be the last piece of their internal puzzle.
It may have been the impetus that started a whole slew of changes over there, or it may just be the last piece of their internal puzzle.
Posted On: 12/22/2003 04:14
Posted By: Webmaster-Toolkit.com
Posted By: Webmaster-Toolkit.com
I think everyone likes Everyman's posts :) (I personally do)
I would like to know if the other Stanford technologies that Google has invested in (and there are a number) are similarly affected...
I would like to know if the other Stanford technologies that Google has invested in (and there are a number) are similarly affected...
Posted On: 12/22/2003 04:09
Posted By: jcokos
Posted By: jcokos
That's going to depend on who initiated, who paid, and what (if any) contracts between the two exist.
Nobody at G or stanford will discuss specifics on it.
Nobody at G or stanford will discuss specifics on it.
Posted On: 12/22/2003 05:37
Posted By: ferret77
Posted By: ferret77
um why would only some results be so different?
if its new algo?
would they run it only only the popular terms first? wouldn't all results be screwy not just ones that are more sought after.
I mean the theroy makes sense , but the results don't really match the theroy do they?
if its new algo?
would they run it only only the popular terms first? wouldn't all results be screwy not just ones that are more sought after.
I mean the theroy makes sense , but the results don't really match the theroy do they?
Posted On: 12/22/2003 05:39
Posted By: jcokos
Posted By: jcokos
I have to think that some terms are much more sensitive to either page rank or the new algo. For things "popular" or highly competitive, subtle logic changes would be huge in affecting results, but for more innocuous things, I don't think that an algo shift makes that much of a difference.
eg "Travel" would be very sensitive to any tweak in the algo, but a phrase like "polish fingernail removal techniques" probably doesn't see a whole lot of movement no matter what google does.
The Google Rep that i spoke with made it very, very clear to me that they're in no way messing with the results at all, other than by logic shifts in the algorithms. No human manipulations, and no connection to adwords or industry. He was [b]VERY[/b] adamant about that ... said multiple times that there was no way in hell they would mess with the organic search at all, under any circumstances in a commercial way.
eg "Travel" would be very sensitive to any tweak in the algo, but a phrase like "polish fingernail removal techniques" probably doesn't see a whole lot of movement no matter what google does.
The Google Rep that i spoke with made it very, very clear to me that they're in no way messing with the results at all, other than by logic shifts in the algorithms. No human manipulations, and no connection to adwords or industry. He was [b]VERY[/b] adamant about that ... said multiple times that there was no way in hell they would mess with the organic search at all, under any circumstances in a commercial way.
Posted On: 12/22/2003 05:33
Posted By: jcokos
Posted By: jcokos
ferret,
It could also be that they're putting the new algo in place only on some servers in the farm? Maybe 25% of searches are done with the new algo, and they phase them in. They did talk about phased testing, perhaps this is how they do that.
It could also be that they're putting the new algo in place only on some servers in the farm? Maybe 25% of searches are done with the new algo, and they phase them in. They did talk about phased testing, perhaps this is how they do that.
Posted On: 12/22/2003 05:13
Posted By: unreviewed
Posted By: unreviewed
Results are different across the board, IMO.
Posted On: 12/22/2003 06:28
Posted By: Keensurfer
Posted By: Keensurfer
I think the changes seen in Google's results must be financially motivated. I also think the results must be humiliating for the researchers who work on the algorithm. My guess is, from the little that I know of big business, some marketing and finance Google guys have enormous heat, unreasonable heat on their researchers to produce an algorithm that outperforms the greatest search algorithm known to mankind. A noble cause with an unreasonable schedule will equal a disasterous IPO. If the Stanford royalty theory is true, by the time all's said and done, Google probably will lose more in their IPO than if they paid Stanford what they should. jcokos, I'm sure theory dispellers will throw rotten tomatos but I give you a lot of credit for documenting a well thought out theory.
Posted On: 12/22/2003 08:27
Posted By: Leigh
Posted By: Leigh
Everyman said[quote]Google could have stopped hyping PageRank from the first moment that they thought of an IPO. They haven't changed their official explanation of PageRank in years. They could have deleted the toolbar indicator many months ago, and come up with some other excuse for "phoning home."[/quote]
I think it needs to be made clear that Google Technology Inc. does indeed own the PageRank [b][/b]trademark and can use it on any search technology they choose to apply. Whether that be the algorithm that is [b]patented[/b] by Stanford, or not.
[url]http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=cehsm2.2.1[/url]
I think it needs to be made clear that Google Technology Inc. does indeed own the PageRank [b][/b]trademark and can use it on any search technology they choose to apply. Whether that be the algorithm that is [b]patented[/b] by Stanford, or not.
[url]http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=cehsm2.2.1[/url]
Posted On: 12/22/2003 08:00
Posted By: Everyman
Posted By: Everyman
[quote]I think it needs to be made clear that Google Technology Inc. does indeed own the PageRank trademark and can use it on any search technology they choose to apply. Whether that be the algorithm that is patented by Stanford, or not.[/quote]
And your point is that Google could have modified the algo and still called it PageRank? Doesn't this reinforce my position? Or did I miss your point?
And your point is that Google could have modified the algo and still called it PageRank? Doesn't this reinforce my position? Or did I miss your point?
Posted On: 12/22/2003 08:03
Posted By: Algonot
Posted By: Algonot
.... yet another very interesting theory jcokos - maybe you're onto something (I'll be interested to hear any 'hard facts' you uncover)
.... BUT Google has shown no desire to help those they've hurt (the hundreds of thousands of Mom and Pop's) this Holiday Season; they've been completley tight lipped, they stand to gain from their actions (Billions for IPO), and therefore .... as Everyman so aptly said:
"We don't need to help Google weather the criticism they've recently been experiencing. You've got it backwards. Rather, Google needs to tell us what the hell is going on. I don't care if Google is a private corporation, or if they will soon be a public one, or if they're all Martians over there in Mountain View, who have their own laws and hate all Earthlings. Google is earth's most vital and important information resource, and as world citizens we have a right to know what's happening, and what to expect in the near future."
.... BUT Google has shown no desire to help those they've hurt (the hundreds of thousands of Mom and Pop's) this Holiday Season; they've been completley tight lipped, they stand to gain from their actions (Billions for IPO), and therefore .... as Everyman so aptly said:
"We don't need to help Google weather the criticism they've recently been experiencing. You've got it backwards. Rather, Google needs to tell us what the hell is going on. I don't care if Google is a private corporation, or if they will soon be a public one, or if they're all Martians over there in Mountain View, who have their own laws and hate all Earthlings. Google is earth's most vital and important information resource, and as world citizens we have a right to know what's happening, and what to expect in the near future."
Posted On: 12/22/2003 08:58
Posted By: Everyman
Posted By: Everyman
[quote]The Google Rep that i spoke with made it very, very clear to me that they're in no way messing with the results at all, other than by logic shifts in the algorithms. No human manipulations, and no connection to adwords or industry. He was VERY adamant about that ... said multiple times that there was no way in hell they would mess with the organic search at all, under any circumstances in a commercial way.[/quote]
I believe you when you say that the Google representative was adamant about this. However, I have to add that if the Google rep was [b]not[/b] adamant about this, he'd be out of a job.
Methinks he doth protest too much. There's the question of messing with the organic results surreptitiously in the interests of quick profits, and then there's the question of [b]appearing[/b] to mess with the results. The jury is still out on the first point. The jury has found guilty on the second.
What I'm suggesting is that due to the second verdict, the burden of proof has shifted. Mere pleadings from the Googleplex are insufficient at this point. We need more complete testimony from Google.
I believe you when you say that the Google representative was adamant about this. However, I have to add that if the Google rep was [b]not[/b] adamant about this, he'd be out of a job.
Methinks he doth protest too much. There's the question of messing with the organic results surreptitiously in the interests of quick profits, and then there's the question of [b]appearing[/b] to mess with the results. The jury is still out on the first point. The jury has found guilty on the second.
What I'm suggesting is that due to the second verdict, the burden of proof has shifted. Mere pleadings from the Googleplex are insufficient at this point. We need more complete testimony from Google.
Posted On: 12/22/2003 08:10
Posted By: Leigh
Posted By: Leigh
"And your point is that Google could have modified the algo and still called it PageRank?"
Exactly. And they would be perfectly withing their rights to do so without notification to anyone because this is a [b]trademarked[/b] term. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're using the patented PageRank [b]algorithm[/b].
"Doesn't this reinforce my position?"
Let's examine what Google says about PageRank:[quote]PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important."[/quote]and[quote]So, Google combines PageRank with sophisticated text-matching techniques to find pages that are both important and relevant to your search.[/quote]
This is very broad an explanation, yes? It wouldn't necessarily need to be changed just because of a change in [b]algorithmic[/b] strategy. It also wouldn't make any sense to change the usage of a [b]trademark[/b] when that trademark is benefiting your business.
Exactly. And they would be perfectly withing their rights to do so without notification to anyone because this is a [b]trademarked[/b] term. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're using the patented PageRank [b]algorithm[/b].
"Doesn't this reinforce my position?"
Let's examine what Google says about PageRank:[quote]PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important."[/quote]and[quote]So, Google combines PageRank with sophisticated text-matching techniques to find pages that are both important and relevant to your search.[/quote]
This is very broad an explanation, yes? It wouldn't necessarily need to be changed just because of a change in [b]algorithmic[/b] strategy. It also wouldn't make any sense to change the usage of a [b]trademark[/b] when that trademark is benefiting your business.
Posted On: 12/22/2003 09:54
Posted By: OAC
Posted By: OAC
Interesting to see the Google Technology filed the Trademark application for "PAGERANK" only on April 25, 2003 and that it was Published for Opposition on
December 9, 2003.
December 9, 2003.
Posted On: 12/22/2003 09:57
Posted By: OAC
Posted By: OAC
PS: What I mean by that is that as at today i.e. December 22, 2003, Google Technology may not own the Trademark "PAGERANK".
Anyone can lodge an objection to Google Technology being granted the Mark, up to 30 days after December 9, 2003. Although this is unlikely, until this 30 day period expires, the certificate of registration can't be issued.
I wonder whether real the "problem" was that Google didn't own the Trademark "PAGERANK", rather than there being some "problem" about Google not having the right to use the "PageRank" algorithm?
Perhaps not having clear title to the Trademark could have had an adverse affect on the IPO?
Anyone can lodge an objection to Google Technology being granted the Mark, up to 30 days after December 9, 2003. Although this is unlikely, until this 30 day period expires, the certificate of registration can't be issued.
I wonder whether real the "problem" was that Google didn't own the Trademark "PAGERANK", rather than there being some "problem" about Google not having the right to use the "PageRank" algorithm?
Perhaps not having clear title to the Trademark could have had an adverse affect on the IPO?
Posted On: 12/22/2003 11:36
Posted By: jcokos
Posted By: jcokos
A trademark and a patent are 2 entirely different things.
Trademarks are basically logos, names, identifiable things (ie: "coke" or "pepsi")
Patents are generally (specifically in this case) the underlying mechanisms that make things work. (ie: The forumula for how to make coke)
The "formula" for Google is what we're talking about here, not what they choose call it this week ;)
Trademarks are basically logos, names, identifiable things (ie: "coke" or "pepsi")
Patents are generally (specifically in this case) the underlying mechanisms that make things work. (ie: The forumula for how to make coke)
The "formula" for Google is what we're talking about here, not what they choose call it this week ;)
Posted On: 12/23/2003 01:23
Posted By: scannist
Posted By: scannist
Just my musings so don't beat up on me <g>
What does Google owe us? What do we owe Google? I'd say "nothing" in both cases. They're capitalists just like we are. My definition of capitalism is "greed is fine as long as you lift other boats along the way" so I have no qualms with what Google is doing. Of course, that doesn't mean I have to like it.
The answer to some of the more important questions seems to be in the future. Will Google continue to be the #1 search engine a year or more from now is one of the multi billion dollar questions. Or will they get kicked out of first place by someone else who does it better. Who knows... maybe a year from now, we'll all be talking about what Bill Gates is doing with his algo.
Whatever is "going on at Google" is somewhat irrelevant to me, unless of course someone at Google wants to let us know what exactly is going on with their latest algo. Fat chance. In the mean time, I'd guess most of us here want to figure out how we optimize our sites to work with this new algo... at least the sites that got kicked in the pants.
I've read tons of messages all over the net and one thing I'm feeling certain of... some things have definately changed with Google's algo and no one has an definitive handle on the situation. Of course, this doesn't add anything to the conversation, does it. I keep looking for that definitive answer backed with proof.
Based on my tiny world of SEO and website development with a handful of websites, most didn't budge and others got totally creamed by the new algo. Definately seems related to the popularity of the terms from where I sit, but I can't prove it. It's just another stupid uneducated guess.
From a "searcher's" standpoint, I don't like what I'm seeing with Google's new algo change. That to me is more relevant than how do I SEO. They're serving up a lot of junk in a number of cases. If Google doesn't fix things over the coming months, I'll be looking for a better "default" search engine. I'd like to think others who don't care about SEO may do the same thing, but that will take time.
Looking into the crystal ball and taking a wild guess, my bet is Google won't "fix" things much. They're getting ready to sell for a huge number ASAP. Sometime later, they'll lose some of the market they're commanding due to the restructuring of their talent pool and corporate structuring. And perhaps they'll lose some of their market because their new algos don't work as good as the old ones did.
Competitors aren't going to sit by forever and let them dominate... too much money at stake.
Adwords and the other "income producers" are "growth" for the time being, but they will subside in time. My bet is the common user will be desensitized - "it's just another banner ad".
Bottom line: I think we may be seeing Google's "peak".
Remember AOL?
Hat's off to John for a great article.
[SyStEm][ Message was edited by: scannist 12/23/2003 01:25 pm ][/SyStEm]
What does Google owe us? What do we owe Google? I'd say "nothing" in both cases. They're capitalists just like we are. My definition of capitalism is "greed is fine as long as you lift other boats along the way" so I have no qualms with what Google is doing. Of course, that doesn't mean I have to like it.
The answer to some of the more important questions seems to be in the future. Will Google continue to be the #1 search engine a year or more from now is one of the multi billion dollar questions. Or will they get kicked out of first place by someone else who does it better. Who knows... maybe a year from now, we'll all be talking about what Bill Gates is doing with his algo.
Whatever is "going on at Google" is somewhat irrelevant to me, unless of course someone at Google wants to let us know what exactly is going on with their latest algo. Fat chance. In the mean time, I'd guess most of us here want to figure out how we optimize our sites to work with this new algo... at least the sites that got kicked in the pants.
I've read tons of messages all over the net and one thing I'm feeling certain of... some things have definately changed with Google's algo and no one has an definitive handle on the situation. Of course, this doesn't add anything to the conversation, does it. I keep looking for that definitive answer backed with proof.
Based on my tiny world of SEO and website development with a handful of websites, most didn't budge and others got totally creamed by the new algo. Definately seems related to the popularity of the terms from where I sit, but I can't prove it. It's just another stupid uneducated guess.
From a "searcher's" standpoint, I don't like what I'm seeing with Google's new algo change. That to me is more relevant than how do I SEO. They're serving up a lot of junk in a number of cases. If Google doesn't fix things over the coming months, I'll be looking for a better "default" search engine. I'd like to think others who don't care about SEO may do the same thing, but that will take time.
Looking into the crystal ball and taking a wild guess, my bet is Google won't "fix" things much. They're getting ready to sell for a huge number ASAP. Sometime later, they'll lose some of the market they're commanding due to the restructuring of their talent pool and corporate structuring. And perhaps they'll lose some of their market because their new algos don't work as good as the old ones did.
Competitors aren't going to sit by forever and let them dominate... too much money at stake.
Adwords and the other "income producers" are "growth" for the time being, but they will subside in time. My bet is the common user will be desensitized - "it's just another banner ad".
Bottom line: I think we may be seeing Google's "peak".
Remember AOL?
Hat's off to John for a great article.
[SyStEm][ Message was edited by: scannist 12/23/2003 01:25 pm ][/SyStEm]
Posted On: 12/23/2003 02:16
Posted By: PhilC
Posted By: PhilC
It was a very interesting article and there may be some truth in it, but I question 2 things:-
(1) Is it really essential essential for Google to be totally self-contained when they go public? My guess is that it isn't.
(2) The new algorithm is applied to the more general searches but not to the more specific searches. If PageRank has to be ditched for the reason given, then it has to be ditched across all searches, and that clearly hasn't happened.
(1) Is it really essential essential for Google to be totally self-contained when they go public? My guess is that it isn't.
(2) The new algorithm is applied to the more general searches but not to the more specific searches. If PageRank has to be ditched for the reason given, then it has to be ditched across all searches, and that clearly hasn't happened.
Posted On: 12/23/2003 03:43
Posted By: OAC
Posted By: OAC
"A trademark and a patent are 2 entirely different things"
I must be slow today because I don't understand the point you are trying to make, John. We know what a trademark is and we know what a patent is and we know the difference between them. The contributors so far, in this thread, have demonstrated they know the difference.
Both can be extremely valuable. I would suggest both are, in the case of this IPO. Perhaps you are underestimating the value of the trademark. The easier it is to replace the Stanford algorithm with an alternative algorithm, the greater the value of the trademark to Google (and the IPO), relative to the algorithm itself. It is entirely possible the value of the trademark significantly outweighs the value of the Stanford algorithm, at this point in Google's life cycle. If Google currently have an alternative to the Stanford algorithm, then the trademark is where the value is, in respect of an IPO.
It entirely possible the value of the trademark doesn't outweigh the value of the Stanford algorithm, but I think it most interesting that Google didn't lodge an application for the trademark for nearly five years then just prior to an IPO, suddenly decides to register it. That indicates to me, that someone suddenly woke up to the value of the trademark.
Leigh has raised an interesting issue. Thanks Leigh :)
I must be slow today because I don't understand the point you are trying to make, John. We know what a trademark is and we know what a patent is and we know the difference between them. The contributors so far, in this thread, have demonstrated they know the difference.
Both can be extremely valuable. I would suggest both are, in the case of this IPO. Perhaps you are underestimating the value of the trademark. The easier it is to replace the Stanford algorithm with an alternative algorithm, the greater the value of the trademark to Google (and the IPO), relative to the algorithm itself. It is entirely possible the value of the trademark significantly outweighs the value of the Stanford algorithm, at this point in Google's life cycle. If Google currently have an alternative to the Stanford algorithm, then the trademark is where the value is, in respect of an IPO.
It entirely possible the value of the trademark doesn't outweigh the value of the Stanford algorithm, but I think it most interesting that Google didn't lodge an application for the trademark for nearly five years then just prior to an IPO, suddenly decides to register it. That indicates to me, that someone suddenly woke up to the value of the trademark.
Leigh has raised an interesting issue. Thanks Leigh :)
Posted On: 12/23/2003 04:39
Posted By: Keensurfer
Posted By: Keensurfer
Good post scannist. I think John's theory works to explore reasons why the world's most relevant search engine would become irrelevant overnight and is BIG news. Google changing their results so dramatically before an IPO is as suspicious as a superstar NFL running back going in for surgery to have both his knees replaced at the same time he's negotiating a long term deal with a team. It will (and should) come under enormous scrutiny. John's posting is not SEO whining about not being able to be found. John has done an admirable job at trying to explore and explain the unexplainable. This thread is continuing to try and explore and explain things. The digger we deep, the closer we will hone in on the truth. Keep digging!!! I would be enormously surprised if Google came and told us "what the hell was going on." On the contrary, I'm more prepared for yet another Google statement that will inform the public that they had to protect the searchers from the big mean greedy SEO to protect the integrity of their search results. Google will have to put their positive spin on this quickly lest a few billion leak out of their IPO bucket. I'd like to see Google befriend us and believe we could build a helpful relationship together, however, thus far, besides sending me a scarf for Christmas, their actions show that they couldn't care less. Dozens of emails to them result in nothing more than "form mail" type responses. I'm surprised that it takes a couple of days for them to decide which standard response to send me. I would think their Applied Semantics brain power could decipher that in milliseconds.
Posted On: 12/23/2003 08:46
Posted By: Frog
Posted By: Frog
Everyman,
Google are hamstrung by PageRank - they never intented to launch an IPO and you (i'm sorry to say) seem to be ignorant in these matters. It's *not* convenient to Google and there is no reason to tell us "what the hell is going on". Without PageRank there is nothing visual to distinguish Google for "those in the know" from other search engines, until they replace it with another system their IPO will be visibly weakened by this knowledge being public. If you have a decent idea of the effects of "reliance upon another party's IP for the success of your company" you'll know that as far as potential investors and a legal team are concerned, it's akin to selling cars with only one global tyre manufacturer. unless you find someone to make a new version of a tyre/wheel for you, you're dependent on their co-operation for your sucess.
Google are hamstrung by PageRank - they never intented to launch an IPO and you (i'm sorry to say) seem to be ignorant in these matters. It's *not* convenient to Google and there is no reason to tell us "what the hell is going on". Without PageRank there is nothing visual to distinguish Google for "those in the know" from other search engines, until they replace it with another system their IPO will be visibly weakened by this knowledge being public. If you have a decent idea of the effects of "reliance upon another party's IP for the success of your company" you'll know that as far as potential investors and a legal team are concerned, it's akin to selling cars with only one global tyre manufacturer. unless you find someone to make a new version of a tyre/wheel for you, you're dependent on their co-operation for your sucess.
Posted On: 12/23/2003 08:17
Posted By: jcokos
Posted By: jcokos
My intention was not to belittle Leigh's point, but to make the impact of a Patent quite clear.
A trademark is just a name or a logo, and they come and go. goto.com change to overture, rocketlinks changed to bay9 and then to xuppa, ah-ha has now changed as well. You can rebrand yourself pretty easily on the Internet, so a Trademark (especially on a technology, not a product), while somewhat important doesn't really mean as much as you'd think.
Patents, however, are huge. Overture, as we all know, owns a patent on the very concept of Pay Per Click bidding. It's being challenged in court right now. Should they win the suit and their patent hold up, they could, technically take down an entire industry with it. Every single pay per click search engine out there .... every one of them .... infringes on the technology/methodology within that patent. Overture could demand big royalties from all of them, or they could have them all shut down, all due to patent infringement. That's huge.
What if Stanford got that grant from the governemtn on google's behalf, paid for the patent process and the lawyers to file it, and in exchange had google sign a contract that grants 75% of the proceeds to Stanford? 75% of that IPO is more than some countries are worth. Obviously, I don't know the terms of their contract, but what if it's something like that? Wouldn't you do everything you could to get around that ?
Were it a simple matter of the name "Page Rank" being owned by Stanford, Google could easily just call it something else and move on. Since Stanford owns the rights to the way Page Rank works, even if Google TM'd a different name for it, they still couldn't use it as part of their algorithm without owing Stanford bigtime.
That's the heart of my theory here, and the reason for my last post on this coming off as too glib.
A trademark is just a name or a logo, and they come and go. goto.com change to overture, rocketlinks changed to bay9 and then to xuppa, ah-ha has now changed as well. You can rebrand yourself pretty easily on the Internet, so a Trademark (especially on a technology, not a product), while somewhat important doesn't really mean as much as you'd think.
Patents, however, are huge. Overture, as we all know, owns a patent on the very concept of Pay Per Click bidding. It's being challenged in court right now. Should they win the suit and their patent hold up, they could, technically take down an entire industry with it. Every single pay per click search engine out there .... every one of them .... infringes on the technology/methodology within that patent. Overture could demand big royalties from all of them, or they could have them all shut down, all due to patent infringement. That's huge.
What if Stanford got that grant from the governemtn on google's behalf, paid for the patent process and the lawyers to file it, and in exchange had google sign a contract that grants 75% of the proceeds to Stanford? 75% of that IPO is more than some countries are worth. Obviously, I don't know the terms of their contract, but what if it's something like that? Wouldn't you do everything you could to get around that ?
Were it a simple matter of the name "Page Rank" being owned by Stanford, Google could easily just call it something else and move on. Since Stanford owns the rights to the way Page Rank works, even if Google TM'd a different name for it, they still couldn't use it as part of their algorithm without owing Stanford bigtime.
That's the heart of my theory here, and the reason for my last post on this coming off as too glib.
Posted On: 12/23/2003 09:41
Posted By: Jean-Luc
Posted By: Jean-Luc
How can an IPO and a software patent be related ?
Because a software patent makes its owner all-powerful! How it works ? First you convince a patent office that you “invented” a new computer program and that nobody before you had the same idea (not very difficult, patent offices worldwide have accepted patents on the most trivial software ideas). Second step : you wait for the victims. Early or later, another company will use the same idea as the one you patented. Now you can define your price not in function of the value of your idea but in function of how deep the pockets of this other company are.
This is why the Google IPO can be related to a software patent.
Basically it does not matter that the patented programs are used before or after the IPO as the license fee is unilaterally decided by the patent owner.
Software patents force companies to divert money from R&D to the legal department. They protect the market dominators and a few cherry pickers. They hurt the economy of the countries (like the United States) where they are legal.
In spite of lobbying from Microsoft and IBM, the European Parliament just rejected the patentability of software.
Because a software patent makes its owner all-powerful! How it works ? First you convince a patent office that you “invented” a new computer program and that nobody before you had the same idea (not very difficult, patent offices worldwide have accepted patents on the most trivial software ideas). Second step : you wait for the victims. Early or later, another company will use the same idea as the one you patented. Now you can define your price not in function of the value of your idea but in function of how deep the pockets of this other company are.
This is why the Google IPO can be related to a software patent.
Basically it does not matter that the patented programs are used before or after the IPO as the license fee is unilaterally decided by the patent owner.
Software patents force companies to divert money from R&D to the legal department. They protect the market dominators and a few cherry pickers. They hurt the economy of the countries (like the United States) where they are legal.
In spite of lobbying from Microsoft and IBM, the European Parliament just rejected the patentability of software.
Posted On: 12/23/2003 10:57
Posted By: yellowwing
Posted By: yellowwing
John, if you've only talked to Google reps, you've only heard one side of the story. Have you've talked to anyone at Stanford or the National Science Foundation?
The Stanford Vice Provost is here http://www.stanford.edu/dept/DoR/
NSF Grants infor can be found here http://www.nsf.gov/home/grants.htm
The Stanford Vice Provost is here http://www.stanford.edu/dept/DoR/
NSF Grants infor can be found here http://www.nsf.gov/home/grants.htm
Posted On: 12/23/2003 10:13
Posted By: Leigh
Posted By: Leigh
jcokos said "Were it a simple matter of the name "Page Rank" being owned by Stanford, Google could easily just call it something else and move on. Since Stanford owns the rights to the way Page Rank works, even if Google TM'd a different name for it, they still couldn't use it as part of their algorithm without owing Stanford bigtime."
Here's what I'm trying to get across (obviously not very well while I was half asleep yesterday):
We don't really know what Google is using behind the scenes, do we? They could very possibly [b]not[/b] be using the PageRank algorithm at all (and not for some time) and none of us on the outside would be the wiser because they continue to use the trademark. This could very well be in G's best interest. To drop the trademark would draw public attention to the fact that they have, in fact, made major changes. Such major recent changes could have a [b]huge[/b] impact on an IPO.
Here's what I'm trying to get across (obviously not very well while I was half asleep yesterday):
We don't really know what Google is using behind the scenes, do we? They could very possibly [b]not[/b] be using the PageRank algorithm at all (and not for some time) and none of us on the outside would be the wiser because they continue to use the trademark. This could very well be in G's best interest. To drop the trademark would draw public attention to the fact that they have, in fact, made major changes. Such major recent changes could have a [b]huge[/b] impact on an IPO.
Posted On: 12/23/2003 10:05
Posted By: davaddavad
Posted By: davaddavad
And replace pr technology with appliedsemantics technology. :)
Posted On: 12/23/2003 10:30
Posted By: Leigh
Posted By: Leigh
"And replace pr technology with appliedsemantics technology."
Which, if it's as advanced as we've been led to believe, would also be a good possibility. :)
Which, if it's as advanced as we've been led to believe, would also be a good possibility. :)
Posted On: 12/23/2003 10:54
Posted By: jcokos
Posted By: jcokos
Very true indeed.
I go back to the original supposition of this theory. Appliedsemantics, pagerank, etc .... who knows what's going on in the algorithm basement over there.
The theory, is that the patent being owned by Stanford very well could be the [b]impetus[/b] behind all of these changes, acquisitions, etc, that we noticed going back to the spring.
I go back to the original supposition of this theory. Appliedsemantics, pagerank, etc .... who knows what's going on in the algorithm basement over there.
The theory, is that the patent being owned by Stanford very well could be the [b]impetus[/b] behind all of these changes, acquisitions, etc, that we noticed going back to the spring.
Posted On: 12/23/2003 10:13
Posted By: jcokos
Posted By: jcokos
As an aside, all I got from Stanford was the runaround.
I spent about 3 hours trying to get to the right person, never got anyone on the phone. I faxed questions, emailed them, and got nothing but autoresponders back.
I felt that I couldn't wait on them anymore before getting the article out. I'll happily add their comments to the mix, should they be forthcoming.
I spent about 3 hours trying to get to the right person, never got anyone on the phone. I faxed questions, emailed them, and got nothing but autoresponders back.
I felt that I couldn't wait on them anymore before getting the article out. I'll happily add their comments to the mix, should they be forthcoming.
Posted On: 12/23/2003 11:56
Posted By: scannist
Posted By: scannist
I'd say the IPO's success is much more related to timing and the structure of the offering with the trademark / patent criteria playing a much lesser role - it's just one of the pieces of the puzzle towards the IPO. If they're going to make the big bucks, the market wags say the IPO should happen in the 1st quarter of the year - there's a rush to the door. I'd say they're right given the market is already overheated. The insiders of many corps are selling more than they are buying. What do they know that the common investor doesn't?
The vast majority of the folks who will buy into the IPO won't know and won't care what the term "SEO" means. In the end, it's the "branding" that will sell. Greed rules the market at the moment. Just look at the overinflated P/E ratios.
More importantly, John's theory that the new algo change is related to the IPO makes perfect sense particularly as it relates to timing. It fills the gap you get when you read the various articles that result from doing a search on Google's "News" page using "google ipo seo".
Sounds like we went from the geeks to the lawyers and the bean counters calling the shots.
One last point... I still don't dismiss some sort of "indirect" connection between Adwords, etc. and the latest algo. I'm happy dismissing anything Google might say to the contrary which could easily be written off as "spin".
The vast majority of the folks who will buy into the IPO won't know and won't care what the term "SEO" means. In the end, it's the "branding" that will sell. Greed rules the market at the moment. Just look at the overinflated P/E ratios.
More importantly, John's theory that the new algo change is related to the IPO makes perfect sense particularly as it relates to timing. It fills the gap you get when you read the various articles that result from doing a search on Google's "News" page using "google ipo seo".
Sounds like we went from the geeks to the lawyers and the bean counters calling the shots.
One last point... I still don't dismiss some sort of "indirect" connection between Adwords, etc. and the latest algo. I'm happy dismissing anything Google might say to the contrary which could easily be written off as "spin".
Posted On: 12/23/2003 11:37
Posted By: larrylegend
Posted By: larrylegend
scannist -
That was a hell of a post back on page 2. Wow. I love your thoughts and attitude.
That was a hell of a post back on page 2. Wow. I love your thoughts and attitude.
Posted On: 12/23/2003 11:04
Posted By: Leigh
Posted By: Leigh
John, I don't believe you're likely to get any response from Stanford at this point. Especially if the recent changes have something to do with patent resolution. Their attorneys would be keeping everything locked tight just as, I'm sure, G's are. From their standpoint, the less outsiders know, the better. Even within the respective parties, the real facts are going to be on a "need to know" basis.
Posted On: 12/23/2003 12:10
Posted By: Logan
Posted By: Logan
While i agree stanford is unlikely to respond, the general policy regarding patents is a fairly interesting read
[url=http://www.stanford.edu/dept/DoR/rph/Chpt5.html]Stanford University Research Policy Handbook Document 5.1:
INTELLECTUAL PrOPERTY[/url]
[b]>>>[/b] [url=http://www.stanford.edu/dept/DoR/rph/5-1.html]Inventions, Patents and Licensing[/url]
Those are some heavy hands they hold there, and the notations regarding public domain are interesting as well. I'm curious if that was ever considered - and could the standford algo be open to public domain concerns and/or opportunities as well. While i anticipate google's situation may be unique, it appears to me that it is likely that there are 'some' details involved to be considered.
[SyStEm][ Message was edited by: Logan 12/23/2003 12:57 pm ][/SyStEm]
[url=http://www.stanford.edu/dept/DoR/rph/Chpt5.html]Stanford University Research Policy Handbook Document 5.1:
INTELLECTUAL PrOPERTY[/url]
[b]>>>[/b] [url=http://www.stanford.edu/dept/DoR/rph/5-1.html]Inventions, Patents and Licensing[/url]
Those are some heavy hands they hold there, and the notations regarding public domain are interesting as well. I'm curious if that was ever considered - and could the standford algo be open to public domain concerns and/or opportunities as well. While i anticipate google's situation may be unique, it appears to me that it is likely that there are 'some' details involved to be considered.
[SyStEm][ Message was edited by: Logan 12/23/2003 12:57 pm ][/SyStEm]
Posted On: 12/23/2003 12:12
Posted By: jcokos
Posted By: jcokos
scannist:
[quote]One last point... I still don't dismiss some sort of "indirect" connection between Adwords, etc. and the latest algo. I'm happy dismissing anything Google might say to the contrary which could easily be written off as "spin". [/quote]
I can relate to your stance on this. All I can say is that on the phone with the guy, I got a real good sense of things from him.
Basically:
"What about the patent" .... "no comment"
"Is this holding up the IPO?" ... "no comment"
"Are you changing organic results based on adwords or industry?" ... "[b]No way, that would be suicide. Absolutely not, we're not going to ruin the one thing that's the core of what Google's all about. Not even an issue[/b]"
"So, what does the contract between Google and Stanfor say" ... "no comment"
Those werent the exact questions I asked, but you get the point. It was a very dry, matter of fact conversion throughout, but when I brought up the issue of the messing with organic results, he got real animated, and was very, very clear about how they view those results as something that they'd never allow commercialization of. Basically, he was dry, dry, dry, "NO WAY", dry, dry, dry.
Based that, which is the next best thing to body language, I believed his sincerity, and didn't question it further.
[quote]One last point... I still don't dismiss some sort of "indirect" connection between Adwords, etc. and the latest algo. I'm happy dismissing anything Google might say to the contrary which could easily be written off as "spin". [/quote]
I can relate to your stance on this. All I can say is that on the phone with the guy, I got a real good sense of things from him.
Basically:
"What about the patent" .... "no comment"
"Is this holding up the IPO?" ... "no comment"
"Are you changing organic results based on adwords or industry?" ... "[b]No way, that would be suicide. Absolutely not, we're not going to ruin the one thing that's the core of what Google's all about. Not even an issue[/b]"
"So, what does the contract between Google and Stanfor say" ... "no comment"
Those werent the exact questions I asked, but you get the point. It was a very dry, matter of fact conversion throughout, but when I brought up the issue of the messing with organic results, he got real animated, and was very, very clear about how they view those results as something that they'd never allow commercialization of. Basically, he was dry, dry, dry, "NO WAY", dry, dry, dry.
Based that, which is the next best thing to body language, I believed his sincerity, and didn't question it further.
Posted On: 12/23/2003 01:06
Posted By: scannist
Posted By: scannist
That's fair. We'll probably never know for sure exactly what decisions were made and for what reasons. I really should have left that comment out because I believe it's a moot point and dilutes my primary observations. I just get a little cynical when there's this much money at stake... the timing is eerie.
Taking them at their word, which is easy to do, one thing seems somewhat safe to say... Their new algo probably added to the bottom line on their other programs like Adwords. And I don't mean to infer any disrespect. More power to them. I love capitalism.
One of the primary purposes of my musings is I'm hoping to see an acceptance to the changes at hand, crappy as they may be, and a renewed and concerted effort to figure out how we adapt to them. If we could expend this much energy to an organized effort as opposed to musing the "why's", we'll be that much further ahead. Of course, discussing the "why's" is both fascinating and interesting so I'm not condemning the process. And perhaps the best result of the conversation is it moves us that much closer to acceptance of the current status quo so we can get on with the inevitable.
Taking them at their word, which is easy to do, one thing seems somewhat safe to say... Their new algo probably added to the bottom line on their other programs like Adwords. And I don't mean to infer any disrespect. More power to them. I love capitalism.
One of the primary purposes of my musings is I'm hoping to see an acceptance to the changes at hand, crappy as they may be, and a renewed and concerted effort to figure out how we adapt to them. If we could expend this much energy to an organized effort as opposed to musing the "why's", we'll be that much further ahead. Of course, discussing the "why's" is both fascinating and interesting so I'm not condemning the process. And perhaps the best result of the conversation is it moves us that much closer to acceptance of the current status quo so we can get on with the inevitable.
Posted On: 12/23/2003 01:56
Posted By: Leigh
Posted By: Leigh
Going back to the "let's help Google" concept, perhaps that would be best offered in a separate thread. Things like "As an end user, what do you look for in a search engine and how could that be realisticly addressed?", "What formula might be used to combat spam in the index?".
For example, I would like to see more weight given to actual content that the visitor sees and less on such things as meta description, title, alt text and inbound link text. Those things are easily manipulated to reflect content that isn't there.
For example, I would like to see more weight given to actual content that the visitor sees and less on such things as meta description, title, alt text and inbound link text. Those things are easily manipulated to reflect content that isn't there.
Posted On: 12/23/2003 02:56
Posted By: OAC
Posted By: OAC
"A trademark is just a name ... while somewhat important doesn't really mean as much as you'd think."
What you are saying is that the PageRank trademark has little value. I have experience with trademarks, patents and valuing them, including for capital raisings, and I would not be so confident about making such assertions.
"Patents, however, are huge."
I wouldn't be confident about saying that either. Patents can be huge but they can also be valueless or somewhere in between. There are many other factors which affect the value of patents and as I indicated above, one is how easily it can be replaced.
On balance, I think your patent theory about the latest update has more legs than the trademark theory but unless you have information that we don't, I wouldn't be rushing to dismiss the trademark as being an important factor in the IPO, quite so quickly.
"Google could easily just call it something else and move on."
Certainly it takes just a few minutes to change the name of something but the "brand" could hold on for years. The fact is, we don't know whether or not in practice, "Google could just easily call it something else and move on". That's a big call and I wouldn't be making it, without better knowledge of the real situation. If Google were to consider changing the name (which, clearly they are not), they would probably undertake market research to test the impact of the name change. Until that is done, we just don't know.
"What if Stanford got that grant from the governemtn on google's behalf, paid for the patent process and the lawyers to file it, and in exchange had google sign a contract that grants 75% of the proceeds to Stanford?"
The value of such an agreement is not and would never be, 75% the value of the IPO - it's value is likely to be no more than the replacement cost - i.e. the cost of developing and implementing a satisfactory alternative to the Stanford algorithm. We have no idea just what that cost may be (or, at least, I don't) so I can't determine whether the value of the Stanford algorithm is huge, or not.
In the early years of Google, the founders and staff indicated that spam corrupting the top rankings, wouldn't be a problem for Google, unlike it is/was for other engines, as they believed that the Stanford algorithm would protect the Google results from such manipulation. With the benefit of hindsight, we now know this belief was ill founded, because the smarties eventually worked out that link swapping and link spamming got around the algorithm. Perhaps, as a result of this, the value of the Stanford algorithm has been devalued to such an extent that it isn't worth the cost of the compensation that Google is currently paying, or has to pay to Stanford.
The corruption of the PageRank algorithm due to link swapping, link spamming and other link manipulation may be such that the Stanford algorithm may, in fact (albeit unlikely), be worthless today. Only Google knows how corrupted their search results were under the pre November update algorithm (we can see plenty of examples appallingly bad results turned out by the November update algorithm).
Perhaps, Google has replaced the Stanford algorithm, because of this and the replacement is turning out these poor results?
We all know that something is going on at Google and your Stanford algorithm theory has a pretty good probability of being true. OTOH, while the PAGERANK Trademark has little or nothing to do with the algorithm change in the November update, I wouldn't be quite so quick to dismiss it as being an important factor, in the IPO.
My view is the same as the scannist's, viz:
"I'd say the IPO's success is much more related to timing and the structure of the offering with the trademark / patent criteria playing a much lesser role - it's just one of the pieces of the puzzle towards the IPO"
One example of another piece of the puzzle is the value of Google's distributed computing operational knowledge.
My two cents :)
What you are saying is that the PageRank trademark has little value. I have experience with trademarks, patents and valuing them, including for capital raisings, and I would not be so confident about making such assertions.
"Patents, however, are huge."
I wouldn't be confident about saying that either. Patents can be huge but they can also be valueless or somewhere in between. There are many other factors which affect the value of patents and as I indicated above, one is how easily it can be replaced.
On balance, I think your patent theory about the latest update has more legs than the trademark theory but unless you have information that we don't, I wouldn't be rushing to dismiss the trademark as being an important factor in the IPO, quite so quickly.
"Google could easily just call it something else and move on."
Certainly it takes just a few minutes to change the name of something but the "brand" could hold on for years. The fact is, we don't know whether or not in practice, "Google could just easily call it something else and move on". That's a big call and I wouldn't be making it, without better knowledge of the real situation. If Google were to consider changing the name (which, clearly they are not), they would probably undertake market research to test the impact of the name change. Until that is done, we just don't know.
"What if Stanford got that grant from the governemtn on google's behalf, paid for the patent process and the lawyers to file it, and in exchange had google sign a contract that grants 75% of the proceeds to Stanford?"
The value of such an agreement is not and would never be, 75% the value of the IPO - it's value is likely to be no more than the replacement cost - i.e. the cost of developing and implementing a satisfactory alternative to the Stanford algorithm. We have no idea just what that cost may be (or, at least, I don't) so I can't determine whether the value of the Stanford algorithm is huge, or not.
In the early years of Google, the founders and staff indicated that spam corrupting the top rankings, wouldn't be a problem for Google, unlike it is/was for other engines, as they believed that the Stanford algorithm would protect the Google results from such manipulation. With the benefit of hindsight, we now know this belief was ill founded, because the smarties eventually worked out that link swapping and link spamming got around the algorithm. Perhaps, as a result of this, the value of the Stanford algorithm has been devalued to such an extent that it isn't worth the cost of the compensation that Google is currently paying, or has to pay to Stanford.
The corruption of the PageRank algorithm due to link swapping, link spamming and other link manipulation may be such that the Stanford algorithm may, in fact (albeit unlikely), be worthless today. Only Google knows how corrupted their search results were under the pre November update algorithm (we can see plenty of examples appallingly bad results turned out by the November update algorithm).
Perhaps, Google has replaced the Stanford algorithm, because of this and the replacement is turning out these poor results?
We all know that something is going on at Google and your Stanford algorithm theory has a pretty good probability of being true. OTOH, while the PAGERANK Trademark has little or nothing to do with the algorithm change in the November update, I wouldn't be quite so quick to dismiss it as being an important factor, in the IPO.
My view is the same as the scannist's, viz:
"I'd say the IPO's success is much more related to timing and the structure of the offering with the trademark / patent criteria playing a much lesser role - it's just one of the pieces of the puzzle towards the IPO"
One example of another piece of the puzzle is the value of Google's distributed computing operational knowledge.
My two cents :)
Posted On: 12/24/2003 04:53
Posted By: Curious_Mark
Posted By: Curious_Mark
This is my slant on why the need to use other technology to drive PR may exist. First, any commercial entity wants as much control as possible in-house. That alone is enough of a reason to move away from the Stanford technology. Google could easily assert that the entity known as PR by the public is owned by them as they brought it into the mainstream 100%. Stanford technology may currently drive the PR engine, but that does not mean Google can't switch to a new engine.
Imagine an ideological struggle between Stanford and Google over the direction that Google is to follow in the future. Would they be in sync? Perhaps Stanford may wish to see Google stay true to a more altruistic, less commercial/corporate vision. What if Google has a different vision, one with far greater commercial merit and drive. Would you want to have a power struggle within the company or would you rather control all of the game pieces?
I could see this whole scenario being a signal that Google wants to control their future completely. I also think that as mentioned above, the Zenith of Google's influence may have passed. The future is the only thing that will tell the true story, should be an interesting ride. This is of course pure speculation on my part.
:)
Imagine an ideological struggle between Stanford and Google over the direction that Google is to follow in the future. Would they be in sync? Perhaps Stanford may wish to see Google stay true to a more altruistic, less commercial/corporate vision. What if Google has a different vision, one with far greater commercial merit and drive. Would you want to have a power struggle within the company or would you rather control all of the game pieces?
I could see this whole scenario being a signal that Google wants to control their future completely. I also think that as mentioned above, the Zenith of Google's influence may have passed. The future is the only thing that will tell the true story, should be an interesting ride. This is of course pure speculation on my part.
:)
Posted On: 12/26/2003 08:45
Posted By: davaddavad
Posted By: davaddavad
If page rank has been manipulated to the point that they can no longer control it i.e. the serps, considering there are x amount of engineers fighting against x to the tenth power of spam engineers who are watching everything they can about googles algo for page rank then they need to change it to something new that it will take more time to manipulate. Enter appliedsematics they bought either to use for themselves as a new algo or so someone else couldnt use it or they bought if for absolutely no reason take your pick.
Google now speaks in 5 languages just so it can "talk in 5 languages and sell adwords and adsense to the rest of the world too! Oh and it reads books to keep up with the jones like amazon.
Google now speaks in 5 languages just so it can "talk in 5 languages and sell adwords and adsense to the rest of the world too! Oh and it reads books to keep up with the jones like amazon.
Posted On: 12/27/2003 12:03
Posted By: nottlv
Posted By: nottlv
As someone who had previously worked in the investment banking industry before getting into tech, this has been a very interesting read. From what I've heard, the tech IPO machine, from the venture capitalists to the investment bankers to the lawyers, has a lot vested in the success of Google's IPO. If there are any hiccups with this bellweather offering, its going to be a lot tougher to get other, lesser known deals done anytime soon. Given that, I think anyone involved in this deal is going to be very careful to address any potential red flags, IP-related or otherwise, that may affect the success of the offering in any way.
My personal thought is that there is a confluence of many factors here that may have forced Google to accelerate it's timetable. Since SEC regulations require even private companies to report quarterly financials if they exceed a certain level of stock distribution (and apparently Google has), the speculation was that this would force Google to push the IPO out sooner as they may have to start reporting in April anyways. Perhaps due to the IP situation with PageRank's underlying algorithm, Google had every intention of gradually phasing in a different algorithm (AppliedSemantics?) before the IPO, but was put in a position where they had to get this thing out quicker than they wanted to, leading to the questionable Florida results.
My personal thought is that there is a confluence of many factors here that may have forced Google to accelerate it's timetable. Since SEC regulations require even private companies to report quarterly financials if they exceed a certain level of stock distribution (and apparently Google has), the speculation was that this would force Google to push the IPO out sooner as they may have to start reporting in April anyways. Perhaps due to the IP situation with PageRank's underlying algorithm, Google had every intention of gradually phasing in a different algorithm (AppliedSemantics?) before the IPO, but was put in a position where they had to get this thing out quicker than they wanted to, leading to the questionable Florida results.
Posted On: 12/27/2003 10:19
Posted By: finesearch
Posted By: finesearch
Long live Google and Pagerank!
Regardless of the beneficiaries of Pagerank and the IPO, I think Google should continue to tweak their algorithm. Despite all of the hype surrounding Pagerank, it is still simple to understand and easily configurable for any true SEO to understand and use. Actually, the algorithm hasn't change all that much since April 2003. It's hardly noticable even for a simple keyword such as "news". So instead of complaining about how they dropped your website, do something about it and outsource it to someone who knows.
I hope they have a successful IPO. We need another boost in the economy and Google's IPO might just do it.
In the end, everyone will be more employed and spending money like it grows on trees again! YOU will be spending more money in your business because you want it to grow.
Regardless of the beneficiaries of Pagerank and the IPO, I think Google should continue to tweak their algorithm. Despite all of the hype surrounding Pagerank, it is still simple to understand and easily configurable for any true SEO to understand and use. Actually, the algorithm hasn't change all that much since April 2003. It's hardly noticable even for a simple keyword such as "news". So instead of complaining about how they dropped your website, do something about it and outsource it to someone who knows.
I hope they have a successful IPO. We need another boost in the economy and Google's IPO might just do it.
In the end, everyone will be more employed and spending money like it grows on trees again! YOU will be spending more money in your business because you want it to grow.
Posted On: 12/27/2003 11:49
Posted By: scannist
Posted By: scannist
Let me be the first to suggest the "Florida Update" should be nicknamed the "IPO Update".
Posted On: 12/28/2003 09:36
Posted By: ferret77
Posted By: ferret77
"Actually, the algorithm hasn't change all that much since April 2003."
"outsource it to someone who knows."
"outsource it to someone who knows."
Posted On: 12/31/2003 09:39
Posted By: crosstalk
Posted By: crosstalk
Remember GIGO, well its now Google-in - Garbage-out.
As a professional researcher, I wish there was a real search engine rather than just a bunch product catalogs.
As a professional researcher, I wish there was a real search engine rather than just a bunch product catalogs.
Posted On: 12/31/2003 09:28
Posted By: jcokos
Posted By: jcokos
LOL
Posted On: 01/04/2004 10:30
Posted By: zylstra
Posted By: zylstra
I am going to go on the record as agreeing with Everyman, although jcokos et al. have some good points; and everyone posting on this thread is amazingly well spoken (written?). Where are all the usual forum posters who are illiterate? ;-)
crosstalk, what exactly are you looking for? In Florida, Google placed noncommercial sites at the top of the results for most ultra expensive words. And if you are searching for noncommercial words as a researcher you should see noncommercial results because few SEOs optimize for words that won't bring revenue.
crosstalk, what exactly are you looking for? In Florida, Google placed noncommercial sites at the top of the results for most ultra expensive words. And if you are searching for noncommercial words as a researcher you should see noncommercial results because few SEOs optimize for words that won't bring revenue.
Posted On: 01/08/2004 09:05
Posted By: MJR
Posted By: MJR
[quote]Interesting to see the Google Technology filed the Trademark application for "PAGERANK" only on April 25, 2003 and that it was Published for Opposition on
December 9, 2003.[/quote]
As much as I hate to give SearchKing, Inc. credit for anything given their less than honorable business ethics, I do believe their lawsuit shook the plaster off the walls over at the Googleplex. And, much of what is going on now is an attempt to seal off the lose ends. A more professional company with the backing of more legal clout *may* have brought this whole mess into a brighter light via a more organized lawsuit. Regardless, the lawsuit did open the eyes of many and this newest development only serves to confirm.
December 9, 2003.[/quote]
As much as I hate to give SearchKing, Inc. credit for anything given their less than honorable business ethics, I do believe their lawsuit shook the plaster off the walls over at the Googleplex. And, much of what is going on now is an attempt to seal off the lose ends. A more professional company with the backing of more legal clout *may* have brought this whole mess into a brighter light via a more organized lawsuit. Regardless, the lawsuit did open the eyes of many and this newest development only serves to confirm.
Posted On: 01/19/2004 03:36
Posted By: consultant
Posted By: consultant
I've been on a 1-month hiatus and and catching this interesting and thoughtful thread late. My main comment is that although this perspective provides some topical variety on this board, is there a significant reason we (SEOs) should really care WHY Google's algorithm is being changed as opposed to HOW it is being used (the prominent topic of this board). Knowing the WHY doesn't help me get my clients ranked any higher unless there is a clear direct link between the WHY and the HOW and I don't see that here. It's more like they are changing it just to change. From a perspective investor standpoint though, this is VERY relavent.
With the loss of the Yahoo partnership, I think way too much importance is being put on this one company especially in light of the fact that their future reputation for relevant organic search results is definitely in question. Consider this patent mess, I'm sure Google will not be the most talked about search engine here 12 months from now unless they get lucky in some way.
The constant tweaking of the ranking algorithm is really a big joke and totally circular. But it must constantly continue as long as there are those that are trying to manipulate it to their advantage. Without pagerank or something similar, the circular process is: Search Engine modifies algo, SEO determines changes necessary to rank good in new algo -- and the cycle starts all over again. Even pagerank can be manipulated obviously. Some of the other major search engines realize this and (wisely) aren't going to waste as much time and resources constantly tweaking because that's the nature of organic search -- the SEOs are always a half step behind you.
The technique I really liked was what DirectHit used. It was basically a pagerank based on the amount of time someone stayed at the website before coming back and clicking on the next listing in the results page. If someone finds what they are looking for, they don't have to return to the search results page. This is one factor in a search algo that cannot be manipulated by an SEO. I wonder if this is being used anywhere right now or if it is patented?
With the loss of the Yahoo partnership, I think way too much importance is being put on this one company especially in light of the fact that their future reputation for relevant organic search results is definitely in question. Consider this patent mess, I'm sure Google will not be the most talked about search engine here 12 months from now unless they get lucky in some way.
The constant tweaking of the ranking algorithm is really a big joke and totally circular. But it must constantly continue as long as there are those that are trying to manipulate it to their advantage. Without pagerank or something similar, the circular process is: Search Engine modifies algo, SEO determines changes necessary to rank good in new algo -- and the cycle starts all over again. Even pagerank can be manipulated obviously. Some of the other major search engines realize this and (wisely) aren't going to waste as much time and resources constantly tweaking because that's the nature of organic search -- the SEOs are always a half step behind you.
The technique I really liked was what DirectHit used. It was basically a pagerank based on the amount of time someone stayed at the website before coming back and clicking on the next listing in the results page. If someone finds what they are looking for, they don't have to return to the search results page. This is one factor in a search algo that cannot be manipulated by an SEO. I wonder if this is being used anywhere right now or if it is patented?
Posted On: 01/19/2004 09:54
Posted By: omegaman66
Posted By: omegaman66
Good point consultant.
There are a lot of theories floating about and I certainly don't have ANY answers but there is one question that has never really been answered that might point us all in the right direction.
"Why on earth did the Florida update have such a drastic affect on only a certain segment of search terms?"
If you will notice the segment it is a highly competitive field. So the answer appears to have something to do with MONEY! How I am not sure.
But think of this if the new algo is a test that has only been implemented on certain terms then it seems strange to me that it would be done on high value terms. Wouldn't they be last if this is the first implementation???
NONE of the answers I have heard EVER fit perfectly.
For the first time ever SEO people are scratching their heads without a clue as to the whats and the whys! Maybe that is part of the goal. Who knows... evidentally nobody except google.
I find myself tuning in here less and less because there is less and less value to talking with people that don't have any of the answers. Not trying to be mean but NOBODY seems to have the answers on new developments at google. I will continue to peek in waiting... hopeful.. that some answers will be forth coming. So far nada.
With that I again give cudos to "consultant". Lots of websites have been knocked down hard. Have any made it back to the top. Any at all??? And if so what did they do? That is what needs to be looked at hard not the patents and such.
There are a lot of theories floating about and I certainly don't have ANY answers but there is one question that has never really been answered that might point us all in the right direction.
"Why on earth did the Florida update have such a drastic affect on only a certain segment of search terms?"
If you will notice the segment it is a highly competitive field. So the answer appears to have something to do with MONEY! How I am not sure.
But think of this if the new algo is a test that has only been implemented on certain terms then it seems strange to me that it would be done on high value terms. Wouldn't they be last if this is the first implementation???
NONE of the answers I have heard EVER fit perfectly.
For the first time ever SEO people are scratching their heads without a clue as to the whats and the whys! Maybe that is part of the goal. Who knows... evidentally nobody except google.
I find myself tuning in here less and less because there is less and less value to talking with people that don't have any of the answers. Not trying to be mean but NOBODY seems to have the answers on new developments at google. I will continue to peek in waiting... hopeful.. that some answers will be forth coming. So far nada.
With that I again give cudos to "consultant". Lots of websites have been knocked down hard. Have any made it back to the top. Any at all??? And if so what did they do? That is what needs to be looked at hard not the patents and such.
Posted On: 01/19/2004 10:57
Posted By: omegaman66
Posted By: omegaman66
After rereading my post I want to clarify a couple of points.
In noway do I mean to say stop talking about the whys of the matter, just the optimization issues are obviously number 1 and we shouldn't get totally sidetracked about the whys which are important in the big picture of the search engine world.
And two: I will continue to return here, just as of late the answers seem to be in short supply. This is actually my home page when ie starts.
In noway do I mean to say stop talking about the whys of the matter, just the optimization issues are obviously number 1 and we shouldn't get totally sidetracked about the whys which are important in the big picture of the search engine world.
And two: I will continue to return here, just as of late the answers seem to be in short supply. This is actually my home page when ie starts.
Add your own comment ....
Sponsored Links
 |
|
Member Spotlight
|
